On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Copeland <greg@CopelandConsulting.Net> writes:
> > I seem to find this argument a lot on the list here. For some reason,
> > many of the developers are under the impression that even if code is
> > never touched, it has a very high level of effort to keep it in the code
> > base. That is, of course, completely untrue.
>
> FWIW, I did not notice any of the core developers making that case.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, any patch to remove inheritance will be
> rejected out of hand. It's not costing us anything significant to
> maintain as-is, and there are a goodly number of people using it.
> Extending it (eg, making cross-table indexes to support inherited
> uniqueness constraints) is a different kettle of fish --- but until
> someone steps up to the plate with an implementation proposal, it's
> rather futile to speculate what that might cost. In the meantime,
> the lack of any such plan is no argument for removing the functionality
> we do have.
Definitely concur ... in fact, didn't someone recently do some work to
improve our inheritance code, as it wasn't 'object enough' for them?
Isn't inheritance kinda one of those things that is required in order to
be consider ourselves ORBDMS, which we do classify our selves as being?